From the D&D Facebook page:
Acid, Holy Water, and Oil are improvised weapons.
The last one has some weird interactions.
Stabbing someone with a 1d4 improvised weapon and you can grab as a bonus action.
Stabbing someone with a 1d4 dagger, and you cannot.
So a rogue want to carry a bunch of broken bottles instead of daggers.
IMO: When you hit a creature, you can grab as a bonus action.
Pommel strike. There's your improvised weapon 
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
pukunui wrote:
mellored wrote:
pukunui wrote:
mellored wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
mellored wrote:
"Does that really need to be spelled out? Really?"
Welcome! You are clearly new to the internet.
I like the feat a lot. It immediately inspires to character concepts. I'll be doing a Human Cleric with a Criminal background (used to be an enforcer), starting with this feat. It will be awesome!
Bingo, sweet feat, exactly what I thought it would entail: +1 to a score, and 1d4 damage for unarmed strike; and the other goodies are sweet.
Yet the Feat is useless to many, perfect.
Nice for the clarification of needing to be Proficient in unarmed strike for the what-have-you.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
hmm I particularly like the idea of using headbutts/kicks as an unarmed attack/improvised weapon with prof, for cinematic moments. Especially if the manouver fighter gets a pushing/shoving ability...
mmmm.... so a free grapple every hit? Havent read the latest grappling rules, I hope they are clear and streamlined. Cause my first reaction is "do not like".
MonkeyStealsThePeach wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
I love that the feat develops a character and gives PC more options. It will be fun to play even if it isn't a choice that maximizes the pcs power.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
This feat looks like a ton of fun. I've known characters across the years that that feat would have been perfect for. I"ve really liked where 5e is going with feats. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the feats once the Player's Handbook comes out.
MonkeyStealsThePeach wrote:
mellored wrote:
It's unfortunate that this Feat (or some other Feat) does not make Unarmed Strike a Finesse and/or Light weapon, which would make it useful to Dex based and TWF builds.
Person_Man wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Don't know that I'd let a character grapple two opponents at once. Maybe if they are both smaller.
I like mellored's house rule.
Person_Man wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
frothsof wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
I suppose it would let you make the move where you grab two opponents and bonk their heads together. It is hard to say that shouldn't be allowed. The feat would even apply, assuming you can count a creature as an improvised weapon
It looks pretty solid to me. Hit for some modest damage, grapple to immobilize and force move 15 or so feet per round sounds useful. I see building blocks here.
beholdergaze wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
The signpost shows a green fish with its maw wide in sunset. The necromancer had agreed to meet with his adversary in a public house, both unarmed and allegedly alone, for ransom demands.
He sneers as the life-priest throws himself down at the other side of the table, slamming his knees in the process. The big chaplain offers a grotesque smile supposed to radiate benevolence, grabs the glass decanter of wine between them, accidentally splashes some of its contents while pouring a cup for the death mage.
"Please, no misguided acts of courtesy for my sake," the necromancer condescends without further ado. "We both know why we are here. You spineless goody two-shoes will accept my terms, and I may spare my prisoners. You are outnumbered and outwitted."
The priest looks briefly over the shoulders of the wizard. Two obvious henchmen saunter at the bar. He sighs with regret at this break of the parley.
Bursting to his feet, he shatters the decanter across the necromancer's face, drenching the black satin robes and toppling the table. Scooping the wizened throat in his fleshy hand while dropping the glassy remains, he pushes his victim up against the tavern wall.
"I will ask you once. Where are my friends? And please bear in mind that 'Good' does not mean 'Stupid'," he wispers without even a raised breath. He cocks his head slightly in an afterthought. "Or 'Nice'."
Regin_Vargtass wrote:
Awesome!
ChrisTheS wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
akaddk wrote:
jaelis wrote:
This feat's perfect for creating a version of my favorite fighter
Leg of lamb, anyone?
MechaPilot wrote:
BARFIGHT !!!!!!
Ramzour wrote:
Grabbing improvised weapon makes you stronger and more resilient? I don't get it. 
Consona wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
at first glance I like what they have done here, while this isn't a feat I would take personally it appears well balanced. I have been concerned that once the game went live we would find that either Feats or stat increases would be an obviously superior choice. Looking at this feat it feels balanced well, I can see how this makes an attractive choice without being a must have.
I appreciate the folks who have taken a bit of time to rough out how they see this feat working for thier character concepts, ( Great scene with the reformed cleric ) like I say this one doesn't jump out at me but seeing how others might/will use it is great.
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
Sorry guys, I misunderstood it. The +1 bonus is permanent, not applied only when you are in a brawl, man I'm dumb... 
Consona wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Okay, guys, when I was asking for "half-feats", I had no they idea they'd end up this awesome.
Have we seen any "full feats" yet?
Sturmunddrang wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Since it is not on the weapon's table, would you consider a shield an improvised weapon [while retaining AC bonus]? If anouther feat allowed a Shield Bash as a bonus action, would this still be true? I am imagining a Human Fighter taking this at 1st under the optional human rules. Using point build end up with a STR 16 CON 16 DEX 14 (then 12,8,8 or 10,10,8). Can easily go Defense, Dueling (side note, if you can offhand an unarmed strikes, intent not to do so would allow the +2 on normal attack), or Protection with this. Would make a real interesting counter to the Bugbear with that grab. Probably a bit less effective as things get bigger, but would really be fun for the first few levels.
mellored wrote:
emwasick wrote:
spelley wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
I think calling the Tavern Brawler feat Improved Grapple is pretty far off the mark since it doesn't really do much of anything (aside from the potential benefits of a +1 to your Str) to make you a better grappler. The bonus action to attempt a grapple gives you more chances to grapple, but it's not like you get advantage on grapple checks or get to add your proficiency bonus even if you aren't proficient with the Athletics skill, or even get proficiency with the Athletics skill.
A few observations:
1. This would give a Wizard proficiency in unarmed strikes. And anyone else that doesn't have "all simple weapons" proficiency.
2. This is even more fun combined with Fighter combat styles.
3. As people have noted, the bonus action grab is after a hit with any improvised weapon - and it does not have to be one handed...
Tavern Brawler Great Weapon Style: Brutal Strike Ladder Grapple!
I don't understand half of the controversy or the discussions about different weapons or spells in relation to this feat. Unarmed means no weapon and the definition for Improvised as taken from Basic D&D PDF is as pasted below it is supposed to be something you pick up from the surrounding environment because your caught without your usual weaons at hand:
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and
have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An
improvised weapon includes any object you can wield
in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a
frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar
to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For
example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option,
a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar
object as if it were that weapon and use his or her
proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon
deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type
appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged
weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee
weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also
deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a
normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
I very much applaude Thunaer for his comments I also think that abilities that add to the story and help flesh out a characters personality will make the game more enjoyable for all. Much more so than if you happen to be able to string X + Y + Z mechanics together simply because the rules say I can or don't specifically say you can't and it mathematically is superior. Its a roleplaying game and it is supposed to encourage people to be creative and tell a story and have fun!
GhostStepper wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Indeed, this feat is a poor choice for pretty much any character that doesn't care/want to improve strength. In the case of the rogue, if the rogue wanted what was in this feat, he'd be better off MCing into Monk for a level (and since Monk tends to be Dex based as well, he'll probably make the prereqs) because monks do get to use their fists using their Dex. [Not saying that all rogues should MC into Monk but this is a classic case where the level 1 dip is better than taking the feat]
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
DLfan wrote:
If your going to grab, you want a Str increase.
Otherwise it's not really a rogue feat.
mellored wrote:
Polaris wrote:
It seems like this feat (and presumably all the other "+1 stat/other effects" feats) is tailor made for the variant human traits. It allows the humans to get the full +2/+1 stat bumps that the other races do, plus some other thematically appropriate features. I like it.
Str based mountaint dwarf rogues are viable.
As long as you can get a light improvised weapon, your good.
Viable? Define viable. Near as I can tell, to get the most out of a martial character you want to heavily invest in Str or Dex but not both....and yes I consider a rogue to be a martial character.
-Polaris
I think the issue with rogues is that Sneak Attack needs a finesse or ranged weapon.
Here's how to do it:
Step 1: Bash the baddie over the head with your improvised club/fists and grapple
Step 2: Get advantage (I'm guessing that the "Grappler" feat will either give you advantage while grappling, or remove the self-imposed disadvantage while restraining someone)
Step 3: Pull out your dagger
Step 4: Sneak Attack until the baddie's dead.
Or...
Step 1: Convince your DM that your broken beer bottle should be treated like an improvised dagger
Step 2: See above.
You can get to 20 Strength with the Tavern Brawler feat by level 8 with either a human (feat variant) or mountain dwarf, while maintaining respectable Dex and Con. You'd have to dump your mental stats, but c'mon... this is a tavern brawler we're talking about!
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
vacthok wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Steerpike84 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
If a rogue took this feat, I would allow it to function with sneak attack.
Yeah, that's a Houserule. But a player making this choice is looking for a boost, not a technicality on which I can shut down a major class feature. so I'm fine changing it myself.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Anyway, I see Feats as character customization options for not just PCs, but NPCs as well. I've been customizing NPCs with Feats instead of class levels and it's a great way to give them a particular boost. Want the monster to be tankier? Give them Toughness or Heavy Armor Master. Want them to deal more damage? Give them any of the weapon feats. Partial spellcaster? Give them a caster feat. A Feat is an easy template to slap on any monster!
Will every PC get good use out of the Tavern Brawler feat? No, probably not, it depends on the build. Some players might enjoy it, and if so, then the feat has succeeded.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
You don't have to think in terms of weapons only being differentiated by explicit rules properties and damage dice. For instance, a broken bottle is capable of inflicting some pretty gruesome scratches even on a light hit, or having a chunk of glass break off in the wound and continue to dig deeper. A heavy chair dropped on your head will, at very least, give you a concussion. A length of bamboo can splinter without shattering and be used to trap someone's arm. I'd be fine with giving the victim disadvantage for any of those.
I'm looking forward to drunken barbarians wielding entire tables. With proficiency.
Skoldorf wrote:
JC999 wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
That's quite a leap of faith, seeing as how the book with the feats hasn't come out yet, and the one feat we do have is not in fact useful to anyone that doesn't have a high strength. I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that claim.
That said, I actually like the feat, more or less. I'm not really that bothered by the fact that grappling is only for the strong, which would make this feat pretty weak to a dex build even if it did make unarmed strikes/improvised weapons into finesse weapons. Unless you're frequently far from your weapons in your campaigns, at any rate. I think 4e went too far in the "any attribute can do anything" direction, to the point where attributes stopped having a meaning. STR in particular is in need of a niche that DEX can't steal from it. I just took issue with JC999 completely misinterpreting the underlying post to spout an all-too-common refrain that had no application to the point at hand.
powerroleplayer wrote:
Ah, so you're going with the strict interpretation of useful as "any conceivable benefit (however slight) in any conceivable situation (however unlikely)." While I can't dispute the truth of your statement under such a definition, I can dispute the value of the statement under such a definition. When feats are a scarce resource, the difference between "very little use" and "no use at all" is meaningless. Your point is therefore irrelevant, even if technically true.
And the discussion in this topic is one more clear example of why I dislike combat rules based on action economy. 
Several valid issues some people have raised about the feat, all of which probably wouldn't be there if they weren't insisting on make everything based on action economy.
powerroleplayer wrote:
Too many people here think that other people are using combat as the only metric for gauging the value of things when there is absolutely no basis for making such an assumption.
But more to the point, even if we assume that usefulness is subjective , it doesn't change the fact that, objectively, skill focus nature** is less useful to most people than natural spell, and is therefore underutilized to the detriment of variety and character integrity. What matters from a game design standpoint is the distribution, not where any given individual falls on that distribution. And the distribution is objective, regardless of whether you choose your place in it subjectively.
*I would argue that it is dependent on the campaign, but that that is something very different from subjective. Value might be subjective, for instance "I know I'm never going to actually roll a knowledge nature check, but it is important to me that I have a high bonus because of my character concept." But value is distinct from useful, and we were talking about useful until you changed the term in that last post. It's great if you derive value from things other than being useful, but balance does not require that we make your character less useful just because you're enjoying his fully-fleshed concept.
**to use your generous example, I can think of several far less useful feats
powerroleplayer wrote:
Why do we keep saying that Natural Spell can only be used in combat?
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"You mean RAW, not my idea.
It would be remarkably stupid for people to spend years training with an expensive and hard to come by sword when they could have just spent it training with a board with a nail in it if they work exactly the same. Teacups aren't daggers and pillows aren't hammers.
Improvised weapons are of shoddy construction, but hey, if your fighter wants to spend years using a weapon that will break often and leave him weaponless, he can go for it."
Neat. Hey,. refresh my memory, where exactly is the rule on weapons of shoddy construction breaking in the RAW?
DemoMonkey wrote:
mellored wrote:
Steerpike84 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Ramzour wrote: